How many human pathogenic retroviruses are known?

[redo]

I am going to the doc on monday, but my memory isn't how it should, far from it. So I need a little help here... Was it two other known retroviruses which were know to cause disease in humans (HIV, HLTV-I) or where there three?

I am talking about viruses besides the one in the xmrv class.

 

[Jemal]

Most websites only mention three vetroviruses that are pathogenic in humans:

- HLTV
- HIV
- XMRV

HTLV causes leukemia (reports vary from 1 in 25 persons to 1 in 100 persons)
HIV causes AIDS
XMRV causes ??? (can't believe it's just there for the ride)

 

[Hip]

Two new serotypes of HTLV have been found in Cameroon recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_T-lymphotropic_virus#HTLV-III_and_HTLV-IV

 

[Jemal]

Yeah, they are also talking about HIV-1 and HIV-2.
Most retroviruses seem to belong to a family. This does seem to be the case with XMRV as well.

 

[Cort]

Most websites only mention three vetroviruses that are pathogenic in humans:

- HLTV
- HIV
- XMRV

HTLV causes leukemia (reports vary from 1 in 25 persons to 1 in 100 persons)
HIV causes AIDS
XMRV causes ??? (can't believe it's just there for the ride)

Based on past findings AND its potential for damage in mice - one would have to assume that it is not just there for the ride...

 

[Deatheye]

XMRV isn't official pathogenic? Or am I wrong. Disease asociation is still missing. So technically I think that would just be HTLV and HIV atm. So that makes two human pathocenic retroviruses and three human infectious Retroviruses.

Or is there anything wrong with this logic? ^^

 

[lancelot]

XMRV isn't official pathogenic? Or am I wrong. Disease asociation is still missing. So technically I think that would just be HTLV and HIV atm. So that makes two human pathocenic retroviruses and three human infectious Retroviruses.

Or is there anything wrong with this logic? ^^

yes, you can say that for now.

As long as there are humans, there will always be new human pathogenic retroviruses.

 

[Jemal]

Officially there is no evidence XMRV is pathogenic, so you are right.

What we know of retroviruses makes it unlikely though that this fellow is completely innocent. And even it's completely innocent, the immune system might not like it and try to annihilate it, causing problems of its own.

 

[jackson]

There are quite a few canidates for "pathogenic human retroviruses" but not accepted into the club yet. So unofficially, I think there is more but thats not a widely held view.

One that has always peaked my interest and one we haven't heard much from lately is the JHK virus.

http://www.mcw.edu/microbiology/SidneyGrossberg.htm

Anyone know anything about this research from the last few years? He always worked quitely without much in the patient news sites.